MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945948495 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2019.1607689

Advances in science and applications of air pollution monitoring: A case study on oil sands monitoring targeting ecosystem protection

2019· review· en· W2945948495 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey R. Brook, Stewart G. Cober, M. Freemark, Tom Harner, Shao‐Meng Li, John Liggio, Paul A. Makar, Bruce D. Pauli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental monitoringAir monitoringOil sandsAir pollutionEcosystemOil pollutionPollutionEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Quantification of atmospheric emissions for multiple pollutants needs to be improved, and reporting mechanisms and standards could be adapted to facilitate such improvements, including periodic validation, particularly where uncertainties are the largest. Understanding of baseline conditions in the air, water and biota has improved significantly; ongoing enhanced monitoring, building on this progress, will help improve ecosystem protection measures in the oil sands region. Sentinel species have been identified that could be used to identify and characterize potential impacts of wildlife exposure, both locally and regionally. Polycyclic aromatic compounds are identified as having an impact on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife at current concentration levels although the significance of these impacts and attribution to emissions from oil sands development requires further assessment. Given the improvement in high resolution air quality prediction models, these should be a valuable tool to future environmental assessments and cumulative environment impact assessments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207